although i personally beleive that these things are probable in their future occurance, i have trouble accpeting the fact that we need to find something "more". In my mind i dub this 'reality skipping', in my experience my former construct caused me much pain and suffering, to the point of depression, however 90% of the world's population conforms to this mainstream reality, why should we forge ahead, why do so many others find contentment in this current mainstream culture, why should we skip and "create" something "greater", is this what life is a pathetic struggle for self preservation? are we running or are we learning? are the people around us that incapable of thought, are they that dull that they find satisfaction in truths lacking logical, through, and yet almost necessary contemplation? how can people be content with the constant need to conform socially, to struggle in a dead environment in order to gain financial security, the list goes on... how i ask can this be happyness?

"even siezure can be stimulated with intense light or specific sound frequency"

That is only true in some cases and so it is not an absoute fact as you presented it.
That is the reason why strobe lights are used during EEGs though..

~sol

I'm really sorry to be the fly in the ointment but, strictly speaking, we seem to exist. Whether we've managed actually to exist is a matter of some debate.

With respect to the question of whether expanding consciousness is ethical or not... I feel the more serious possibility of ethical error lies in a failure to expand consciousness.

What are we if not our consciousness? Our awareness is everything we experience, and to the extent that it is limited, our understanding of the universe - of anything at all - is limited. To the extent that our understanding is limited, our decisions are unjust. To the extent that our decisions are unjust, we are unethical.

It would be far less ethical to remain content with a consciousness we know to be unsatisfactory, or at least short of its potential, especially when we know it can be safely and carefully expanded.

Cold argument aside, this is ourselves we are talking about. In a personal sense it is far more courageous to rail against the illusions, to work them out carefully and discard them, to explore the unknown mysteries within and without ourselves. Whoever knowingly refuses that opportunity surely discards a most precious jewel. In this sense I agree with Laz's sentiments on the first page of this topic.

But we cannot go so far as to say that those who fail to expand their consciousness are unethical. How, given what is apparently real, could we make a value out of recognising that most of it is illusory? Given that the entire quest begins, after years of searching, with a heartfelt shrug of the shoulders as we finally accept how little we really know, how could we condemn those who fail to aspire to this contrived value?

So I would not go so far as to say, as Laz does: "I believe that if one is a "simple person", one should be ashamed." I feel that the simple person misses out on wonderful infinitudes of awareness, but I do not think they ought to feel ashamed, or suffer any more than they do for their lack alone. I think Laz's Nietzsche quote is excellent, and I agree with it. Nietzsche also said that the weak and the botched shall perish (and we should help them to it). Whosoever is thoroughly resolved to remain in the quaking mass will probably remain there, and he or she will die eventually in a relatively unenlightened state. Practical sympathy for the weak and the botched may sometimes be an error, but if one wants them to be ashamed as well as unenlightened, that springs from a weakness - how do we know the "simple person" if not by the simpleton in ourselves? We may hate them or be entertained by them, but if anything we ought to feel deep compassion for them. The enlightened understand more than anyone the terrible depths of illusion in which the uninquisitive are mired.

Ive pondered over that for many a late night and have yet to decide if it is even possible, if it was.. how would you know?

Ethical or not, expansion of consciousness is necessary for one VERY important reason, the only one that matters in the end: SURVIVAL. Individual needs or wants yield to the power of the collective need. And that one is survival. Simple. All contradictions, philosophical or otherwise dilemmas stop here. And the proof my argument is very simple: Do nothig, keep the status quo and wait for time to continue its natural course. Come back and check on us 10, 50 or 1000 years from now. Post results here, in this very same thread.

hmm yes but that raises the question what are you surviving? and if you fail to survive what are the consequences? prehaps it is like so many religions say and we all go to a nicer place? then does survival really matter? and we are all going to "die" someday.. at least thats what people say.

This quasi-unbeareble dulness they call existence...

Death to all that is. Even the Universe itself, as is transitions from hot to cold down the time line, cannot escape this innevitable fate.

Religion was born out of the inheredited human need for dealing with those elements of reality that escape our immediate understading, but which have some type of control over us. It is another form of searching the ideal, the perfect relation between us and our environment. Does it ring a bell?

Well I must agree existance can be dull.. However how do you really know what death is.

I will never, EVER know...

meh, this world is boring I look forward to a new one once ive had my fun lol, yeah I see what your saying.

How do you know that?

Cause he isnt going to die, at least not in the way youd think..

Great question. This is my personal answer, which may differ from others’.
1- Death by definition implies the permanent suspension, the end of consciousness. So, how would I know that I’m dead without registering the event in my conscious?
2- The possibility of eternal life as defined by Quantum Immortality(link) is another way of not knowing death. And finally,
3- Consciousness Singularity, as defined in the vaults of BrainMeta(please refer to the CS forum here at BrainMeta) , which I see as my ticket to the resurrection (or better yet, eternal life).

As that's your personal answer; irie vibes, so be it.

I don't entirely agree with point #1 though - the definition of death.

This sub-argument started when I asked how one could know well enough to assert a claim like: "I will never ever know" what death is. So to give a definition of death is somewhat contradictory; you conclude that you'll never know what death is by defining death in a certain way, which precludes it from ever being known. But since you don't know what death is, how can you define it? And then proceed from there...?

I think the only thing we can really say about death is that it is the apparent end of life, as we know it. Death is the conceptual polar opposite of life. But our understanding of life is limited, and I think we (often, in the normal course of events) erroneously take our current state to be the one extreme - alive - and our future state to be the other extreme - dead.

But in this universe, as regards our ideas of what constites "life" and "being alive" (and what is contrasted with this - our ideas of being "dead" or "non-living", which we obtain from our observations of apparently dead things, as if this observation could give us any insight into their subjective state of experience) - if these ideas are fixed and if we have any certitude about them, we are basically mistaken. Our way of thinking about life and death is very coarse, and fraught with estimations and inclinations, particularly the one that regards being alive as a good thing and being dead as a bad thing, not to mention the questionable applicability of those labels to the true state of things.

Dying is the process that leads us towards death, which is the state of being "dead". Does the process of "living" not do the same? Is "living" therefore not basically the same process as "dying", or does "dying" proceed from "living" like a ripening and rotting fruit? To what extent then does "living" proceed from "dying", like a seed sprouts a sapling? And what of "life" - the state of being "alive" - and "death", the state of being "dead"? Do we die only at one moment, when (we assume!) our consciousness ceases, or are we in fact dying every moment? When do we live? Are we alive now? Will we ever die? How can we know any of this?

Are these concepts perhaps just polar conceptual extremes that fail to obtain to the true nature of reality?

It's a possibility.